If these are the best arguments that the "anti-lifers" can put forward, then I think there is good news for those concerned about unborn boys and girls. And can we get past the name calling? I think pro-choice and pro-life are legitimate.
As to this video it is filled with poor arguments. Using the history of evolution to say we really do not know when life began to justify we do not know when life begins now is weak. It follows that we cannot say those typing in this blog have life in any definitive sense. Science shows us an immediate reaction upon conception. There is no new information added after that. Science shows us life begins at conception, the debate is over the value of that life.
Then it is argued that the unborn baby has no brain and feelings to justify abortion. If that is a basis for abortion than after 2-3 months it could be argued that the unborn baby boy or girl has the capacity for those things, thus this argument allows for restrictions on abortions. The heart starts to beat in about 5-6 weeks and the brain is developing shortly after that. The later the abortion the more likely the unborn baby boy or girl feels pain. So you all should agree to limits on abortion after a few months if like this videos logic.
There is also a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. Taking direct action to end a life has moral implications. The mocking of using the death certificate example does nothing for the argument.The issue of one's personal beliefs digresses into complete relativism. If one goes that route than there is no stopping where it ends. Saying if you believe life begins at conception or after the first breath as mere opinion is dangerous. Philosopher Peter Singer argues that the parents should be allowed to kill their baby up to 28 days. This is purely arbitrary and the line can be moved to any point in one's life.
The closing argument is just ridiculous. As stated before science shows us that life begins at fertilization. Stop basing this argument on the Dark Ages of prenatal medicine. If this video is seen as a strong argument for abortion rights then the pro-life side of the issue should be comforted. The last point is to another comment that was posted. The issue of not being able to use another's body without permission. This just denies biology. More importantly it confuses identity with dependence. Just because one is temporarily dependent on another biologically doesn't mean they do not have a separate and valuable identity. Following the posters logic, then infanticide is justified. The newborn is still dependent on his or her mother and father, does that mean the baby has no identity, I think not.
You cannot critique China then following the line of thought of the video. Sex selective abortions are justified. Also applying the body analogy. China probably sees their political system as an organic body, thus they can decide who lives or dies regardless of in the womb or out of the womb. The only way to combat this logical and necessary consequence is to ground human personhood and identity at the moment of conception. If it is not then there is no logical place it can be asserted without destroying all the pro-choice arguments for abortion on demand.
Posts
